• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
a_unique_person said:
:words:
Click to expand...
This was a simple "yes" or "no" question a_u_p.

Would you vote for an Australian party that had genocide and racism as planks of their platform, if you happened to like their economic policies?

The answer in Gaza to this question was a resounding "yes".
 
Cleon said:
Reality: None of the ships in the flotilla are carrying weapons.

Ergo, all this talk about blocking weapons is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Abdul Alhazred said:
The aid is going through -- Ergo talk of a blockade is pure deception.

And people who support the "flotilla" are promoters of mass murder.
Click to expand...

the 'mad arab' has refused to answer any questions calling for proof that the flotillas carry arms.
he prefers to stick to his hyperbole and erroneous claims.
 
HoverBoarder said:
Not really that many. How did he get on the list?

Must be your 'blame everything on the West, no matter what the cause, reason, or logic is because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside strategy.'

Pardon me if I want to seriously look at the world around me and find realistic solutions to our problems instead of just making 'Aljazeera level' the-West-is-bad-no-matter-what blanket statements for anything and everything that happens in the world.
Click to expand...

JihadJane said:
Because he "engaged in pointless massive killings".

None of your links give any numbers to support your "large number of people" claim, which I notice you have now conveniently interpreted to mean "a whole lot of people", "a number of people", "a whole bunch of people" and "quite alot of people". :-)
Click to expand...

Well all of those people on that list still have a "large number of people" who support them. Some have an enormous number of people (millions) who still support them. All except Nixon, and possibly Ida Aman (who has supporters, but nowhere near the level of Mao or Hitler).

I was pretty happy with that response though, and I thought my part about Mao was pretty funny. I couldn't get "aint no party like a West Coast Party" with a Communist theme out of my head :).
 
HoverBoarder said:
Greece offered to transfer the goods to Gaza instead, but that was never the point of the flotilla. The point of the flotilla was to obtain media coverage for the plight of the Gazans who have been suffering under intense Hamas and Israeli oppression, but the flotilla only focuses on Israel, and ignores the serious damage to the Gazan people from Hamas.

Gazans would not have nearly as much trouble as they do now if it were not for Hamas. There absolutely should be more people working to better the lives of the people living in Gaza, but blaming all of their problems on Israel, and engaging in dangerous provocative acts like trying to break a Naval blockade for media coverage doesn't actually help Gaza.

If they really want to help, they should put the same intensity towards advocating for both sides to get serious about peace.
Click to expand...

JihadJane said:
Do you think it's right that the people of Gaza are being punished for electing Hamas?
Click to expand...

No I don't. This is one of the very few things that we would agree on.

I do not think that it was fair that the people of Gaza were not told that they would be punished in the way that they have been for voting for Hamas, or that they would not allowed to have many basic building and living supplies because Hamas rules the area that they live in.

I agree with the activists of the flotilla who refer to this as collective punishment, and while I think that there should be limits on the supply of weapons to Hamas, I don't think a large portion of the materials that are prevented from entering Gaza (like living supplies), or leaving Gaza (like factory goods) is justified because of Hamas's presence or actions.

I do not however think that the flotilla is a helpful or good idea, and I think that much more benefit would come from putting the same intensity towards advocating for both sides to get serious about peace.
 
After the BS start I didnt think this thread could get any worse. It did.

It starts off with a lie and decends into the usual nonsense.
 
WildCat said:
Well I'm not carrying a weapon on the airplane, or planning to hijack it, therefore I shouldn't have to go through security.

Does this example illustrate the absurdity of your position?
Click to expand...

No, very very far from it. But you knew that.
 
Cleon said:
Great. Well, since none of these boats are carrying weapons of any sort, there's no reason for Israel to prevent them from reaching Gaza.
Click to expand...

And how do you determine that they are not carrying arms by the time they reach Gaza?

This ship made the same claim:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-...-ship-carried-hundreds-of-tons-of-arms-1.4791

Or this one:

http://www.france24.com/en/20091104-navy-intercepts-ship-carrying-arms-iran-hezbollah

Or this one:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Governmen...f+the+Palestinian+weapons+ship+Karine+A+-.htm



FACT: Hamas has been smuggling weapons in via ships.
FACT: The only way to know for sure is to inspect the ship
FACT: Israel has offered to take in any humanitarian aid, yet the flotillas refuse to allow them to.
 
"Do you think it's right that the people of Gaza are being punished for electing Hamas? "

Do you think it's right that the people of Israel have to sit and endure attacks on their civilian population because the people of Gaza decided to elect a government who's goal is to destroy Israel?

Israel has 3 choices as far as I can see:

1) Sit back and allow Hamas to target and attack their civilians (and the only reason it hasn't been too devastating is because of how harshly Israel responds to attacks. They had their days of daily suicide bombings and said enough was enough).

2) They can just let the arms shipments get to Hamas and then attack those targets once they are placed in civilian populations which would then increase the death toll of those "poor Palestinians" 1000 times.

3) Or they could inspect shipments to insure that no weapons are smuggled in, eliminating needless deaths of Palestinians and Israeli civilians.

Which is the most humane choice that would present the least amount of suffering and deaths?
 
The Fool said:
so you think a state is something occupied by a foreign power? It appears your "state" is absolutely indistinguishable from a non state.....
Click to expand...

How do you come up with these strawman arguments. Are we in the same forum or do you have someone interpreting the conversation with you that might be adding content for you?

What makes it occupied? The fact that land that Israel is on the Palestinians claims is theirs. Hence they refuse to start a state unless they first have all the land they want. Do you not understand this absolutely simple concept? I am sure I most 5th graders can understand this.

is Iraq not a state? It's occupied, therefore it's impossible to be a state. Yet it has a running functioning government. Did it cease to be a state when the US invaded? And they actually in the false scenario that you're trying to create which is that the land is indisputably theirs and not in dispute with the US. With Palestine, who's landis who's is in dispute. You just don't recognize one sides argument to the dispute, hence your inability to understand the situation and create these strawman arguments. Oh and your inability to actually explain what is stopping them from creating a state. Apparently if someone claims they are being occupied there is some magical force that prevents them from being able to declare a state. I can't tell until you actually explain the reason.
 
a_unique_person said:
Israel, for one thing.



http://www.haaretz.com/print-editio...ahead-of-september-vote-on-statehood-1.371198

Not to mention the Likud charter.



Likud being the party in power currently, and the party that does it's best to destabilise other peace processes.
Click to expand...

How convenient of you to cherry pick from your sources.

From the first one:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas continues to declare that if negotiations with Israel resume on the basis of the 1967 borders with territorial exchanges, he will withdraw the Palestinian bid for statehood through the General Assembly.
Click to expand...

The 2nd one:

With Likud back in power, starting in 2009, Israeli foreign policy is still under review. Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, in his "National Security" platform, neither endorsed nor ruled out the idea of a Palestinian state.[13] "Netanyahu has hinted that he does not oppose the creation of a Palestinian state, but aides say he must move cautiously because his religious-nationalist coalition partners refuse to give away land.

n June 2009 Netanyahu outlined his conditions for the eventual creation of a Palestinian state, including the state being demilitarized, without an army or control of their airspace.
Click to expand...

In other words your articles you use to claim that Israel won't allow them to create a state claim exactly the OPPOSITE of that. You chose to use the outdated parts and skip the current parts. How convenient.
 
Cleon said:
Reality: None of the ships in the flotilla are carrying weapons.

Ergo, all this talk about blocking weapons is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Jonnyclueless said:
And how do you determine that they are not carrying arms by the time they reach Gaza?

This ship made the same claim:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel-...-ship-carried-hundreds-of-tons-of-arms-1.4791

Or this one:

http://www.france24.com/en/20091104-navy-intercepts-ship-carrying-arms-iran-hezbollah

Or this one:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Governmen...f+the+Palestinian+weapons+ship+Karine+A+-.htm



FACT: Hamas has been smuggling weapons in via ships.
FACT: The only way to know for sure is to inspect the ship
FACT: Israel has offered to take in any humanitarian aid, yet the flotillas refuse to allow them to.
Click to expand...

Bingo!
 
bikerdruid said:
your credibility is non existent.
please, show us where the flotilla promotes 'death to israel'.
as i asked earlier, please prove that they are supplying arms to gazans.
the last flotilla where the idf murdered several people, was bringing construction supplies, for rebuilding, and paper, which is contraband.
Click to expand...

The last flotilla's supplies were also out of date and expired.
 
Jonnyclueless said:
How convenient of you to cherry pick from your sources.

From the first one:



The 2nd one:



In other words your articles you use to claim that Israel won't allow them to create a state claim exactly the OPPOSITE of that. You chose to use the outdated parts and skip the current parts. How convenient.
Click to expand...

Is this bizzaro world? Israel is trying to get the UN numbers to vote down a unilateral declaration of independence for the Palestinians. Likud will allow indepdendence, but only on their terms, that is, they won't be indepdendent. That's not cherry picking. There are other options, but not the one you were discussing.
 
a_unique_person said:
Is this bizzaro world? Israel is trying to get the UN numbers to vote down a unilateral declaration of independence for the Palestinians. Likud will allow indepdendence, but only on their terms, that is, they won't be indepdendent. That's not cherry picking. There are other options, but not the one you were discussing.
Click to expand...

Two parties disagree on the terms. This is for UN recognition. What you did absolutely WAS cherry picking because you made claims that were directly contradicted by your own source. They are open to a Palestinian state. The two parties dispute the exact terms. This does not mean they are blocking a Palestinian state being created, just one that Palestine requires in order to accept as a state. Israel is a state, there will be changes to the territories at some point on their end regardless of the outcome. Does that mean they are not a state because their territory will change? So why can Palestine not do the same and become a state while still negotiating territory?

If there are other options, please feel free to list them. How can Israel protect itself from Hamas without intervening?
 
bikerdruid said:
wrong.
he was attempting to provide humanitarian aid to the people of gaza.
i don't think their politics matter.
if they were transporting arms, as the op claims, then you could make that claim.
this thread started with bs and has gone down hill from there.
Click to expand...

they had a permission from Hamas to deliver it directly to the people?
 
bikerdruid said:
wrong.
he was attempting to provide humanitarian aid to the people of gaza.
i don't think their politics matter.
if they were transporting arms, as the op claims, then you could make that claim.
this thread started with bs and has gone down hill from there.
Click to expand...

No he was not trying to provide humanitarian aid, they were trying to instigate a fight with Israel. If they were trying to provide humanitarian aid they wouldn't need a flotilla.

I am sorry if the facts are inconvenient, but the facts are the facts. Even the people on the flotilla were forced to admit that they are not there for humanitarian purposes. While I don't consider them to be intentionally trying to aid hamas, what they did was illegal. And the captain WAS putting people in danger by trying to run them directly into a military conflict which could result in people getting hurt.

So can people please stop insulting our intelligence by trying to pretend this has anything to do with humanitarian aid? At least the Flotilla members have come to terms with this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom